'File 4/6 II Kuwait-Iraq Frontier' [‎188r] (375/440)

TORSIOH OPFICI, 8 .W. 1.
(B 11151/700/91) 8 th September, 1948*
COHMPSHTIAL
Would^ou please refer to your letter Ho. 135 (53/54)
of 16th August about the Kuwait-Iraq frontier.
After consultation with Hay we had thought that it
might be adrisable to find out from the Sheikh of Kuwait
how he himself regarded the frontier line as running on the
basis of the 1940 formula, at the time he accepted it, in
case the Sheikh should subsequently claim that the frontier,
as demarcated according to this definition, gawe Iraq
territory which in his Tiew should properly be part of hie
Sheikhdom. This in its turn would raise the question of
our good faithfln giving the Sheikh an assurance that the
1940 definition was only "a clarification of the existing
frontier w . As a result of your letter we have re-examined
the whole question taking into account Hay's letter No. 119
of the 20th July.
We are Impressed with your arguments against asking
the Sheikh how he thinks the line runs and our conclusion is
that it would be best te proceed as you suggest and simply
to seek the consent of the Sheikh to a further approach to
the Iraqi Government on the basis of the 1940 formula. But
in order that he may know exactly what is proposed we should
like you to show him on a large scale map just how this
frontier will run. If he does not demur, then we can proeaed
to approach the Iraqis. If he does we can consider whatever
he has to say. Will you now approach him and let us know
what transpires?
If any resulting negotiations with Iraq come to
nothing, if there is then resort to arbitration and in the
course of arbitration reference is made to the 1913 agreement,
our line with the Sheikh must be that legally the 1913
agreement cannot be taken into account in interpreting the
1923 and 1932 te/ts and that we do not consider the 1940
formula to involve in any way "surrender" by him.
In negotiating with Iraq His Majesty's Government
cannot, as we have said before, put forward any line other
than the 1940 line. It is not therefore practicable to
argue that the junction of the Khor Zubalr with the Khor
Abdullah is immediately south of Unm Qasr as suggested by
Hay. In any case we do not regard this point as a valid one*
Hay's view as set out at the end of paragraph 5 of
his despatch No. C/7& of the 10th March, 1942 is that Sir
Percy Cox must have regarded the Khor-att-Tha'alab as part
of the Khor-Zubair and that he did not Intend hia line to
end at the tri-junction of the Khor-att-Tha'alab, Khor-as-
Sablyeh and Khor Abdullah but at "the right bank of the
southern extremity of the Khor-att-Tha'alab". But what
the/
Lieutenant-Colonel
A.C. Galloway,C. I. E., 0. B.E.
Bahrein.
f